World Will Need “Carbon Sucking” Technology by 2030s, Scientists Warn

People, in the grand scheme of things plants/trees are not carbon sinks, they're neutral carbon absorbers, yes they absorb CO2, now then when the plant dies/rots/decays or something eats it and burps/farts/shits it out then you're back at square one. Yes harvesting wood could hold it out of the environment for a longer period of time but wood doesn't stay good forever, whenever a house gets torn down, or burned down, or natural decay of the wood, CO2 goes right back into the air. The whole idea of "forests" is the problem, when you use any sort of fossil fuel you essentially are burning forests that were buried and removed from the environment millions of years ago. So that creates MORE CO2. Net result is CO2 levels go up, yes it might spur more plant growth in the short term but overall plants won't control it, the oceans will absorb it to a point until they get too acidic and there goes most of the ocean diversity when the coral reefs die out.
 
TheCommander said:
Highlander: The Source might be worse, way worse.
Click to expand...
I like to imagine that only the original movie was made. That keeps me happy.

As to what to do with the sequestered carbon... I say we feed it into a new 'roller' type automated bot, and rebuild all the roads through the world in diamond! They'd pay for themselves in reduced maintenance costs, I tell ya...
 
M76 said:
No they'll say it was caused by the indifference of scientific illiterates of the 21st century.
Click to expand...
Like those warming alarmist ignoring recent scientific research?
Pohjois-Suomen%2Bkes%C3%A4l%C3%A4mp%C3%B6tiloja%2Bpuulustojen%2Bvalossa.PNG
 
The only returns I seem to be able to find for that graph are from two well known "climate skeptic" sites. Have a link to the paper? Normally I prefer my fantasy writing to have dragons or space ships, but...

:D

Seriously and honestly though, I'd like to see the actual source for this one - no joke.
 
sfsuphysics said:
People, in the grand scheme of things plants/trees are not carbon sinks, they're neutral carbon absorbers, yes they absorb CO2, now then when the plant dies/rots/decays or something eats it and burps/farts/shits it out then you're back at square one. Yes harvesting wood could hold it out of the environment for a longer period of time but wood doesn't stay good forever, whenever a house gets torn down, or burned down, or natural decay of the wood, CO2 goes right back into the air. The whole idea of "forests" is the problem, when you use any sort of fossil fuel you essentially are burning forests that were buried and removed from the environment millions of years ago. So that creates MORE CO2. Net result is CO2 levels go up, yes it might spur more plant growth in the short term but overall plants won't control it, the oceans will absorb it to a point until they get too acidic and there goes most of the ocean diversity when the coral reefs die out.
Click to expand...

I would like to add, prior to microbs that were able to decay trees, trees were a carbon sink - this is where a huge chunk of the coal that's burned today comes from. This natural carbon sink from a few hundred million years ago no longer exists.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...tically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth/

M76 said:
Good, we already have that tech. It's called plants. Maybe you should stop mass de-forestation at the same time you reduce co2 emissions.
Click to expand...
Read the above link to fix your ignorance. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
sfsuphysics said:
People, in the grand scheme of things plants/trees are not carbon sinks, they're neutral carbon absorbers, yes they absorb CO2, now then when the plant dies/rots/decays or something eats it and burps/farts/shits it out then you're back at square one. Yes harvesting wood could hold it out of the environment for a longer period of time but wood doesn't stay good forever, whenever a house gets torn down, or burned down, or natural decay of the wood, CO2 goes right back into the air. The whole idea of "forests" is the problem, when you use any sort of fossil fuel you essentially are burning forests that were buried and removed from the environment millions of years ago. So that creates MORE CO2. Net result is CO2 levels go up, yes it might spur more plant growth in the short term but overall plants won't control it, the oceans will absorb it to a point until they get too acidic and there goes most of the ocean diversity when the coral reefs die out.
Click to expand...

You do know most of our coal sources came from plants that died and we're buried before the CO2 was released right?
 
Step 1: Manufacture problem.
Step 2: Cause panic due to problem.
Step 3: Sell solution.
Step 4: PROFIT!

There's no ???? step because this is too obvious.


5150Joker said:
Go try and tell Brazil that.
Click to expand...

Brazil is more worried about real problems, like the insane murder rate, stagnating economy and scum politicians(all left of center) robbing the country blind.
 
Azrak said:
From the article: "Climeworks says its venture is a first step in their goal to capture 1 percent of the world's global CO2 emissions with similar technology. To do so, there would need to be about 250,000 similar plants, the company says."
So they need 250,000 of these for 1% offset. Yeah, I'm still laughing.
Click to expand...
So do nothing is your solution.
Got it
 
DigitalGriffin said:
They are pumping it into vegetables which is irony because as veggies decompose, whether in the body or not, it releases the Carbon back into the atmosphere (CH4 and CO2).
Click to expand...

Most of these stupid schemes only look attractive of you leave elements out of the analysis. This one doesn't even manage to do that.
 
Great lets screw with the climate in a way we dont understand and hope good things happen. We understand our climate so little, we should not attempt to distort it by artificial means. While I am all good with limiting our pollution and using cleaner tech, I am not good with tampering of the environment by artificial means. We can literally kill ourselves off by doing so.
 
Climate scientist sitting comfy in their unnatural AC/heat assisted temperate envionrments...look away folks look away nothing to see here!
 
DigitalGriffin said:
You do know most of our coal sources came from plants that died and we're buried before the CO2 was released right?
Click to expand...
Huh? These plants were buried, kind of like what they're proposing to do with the excess carbon, CO2 existed when these plants were created, the fact they were buried removed that CO2 from the atmosphere that those plants absorbed "forever" (until us upright monkies figured we could burn it and get energy out of it).
 
If we ran everything off soylent green it would get better real quick!
 
its called trees, if we could get certain countries i wont mention as to not offend snow flakes to stop making babies and overpopulating themselves and stop expanding we could keep a few trees and Greenpeace.
 
Yeah, they're called fail-safe nuclear power plants.

Wind, solar, and hydro can not provide the capacity, cost-effectiveness, and longevity needed in the time frame required to curtail the CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere. Only nuclear can do that in the short time frame needed. Call your Senators and Representatives.
 
Sikkyu said:
quickly, someone say we need this stupid tech. Please sign my check for more research.
Click to expand...

We will need some form of it, I'd say find more uses for CO2.
or dump the price for us so we can use it for more DICE overclocking :D

Uvaman2 said:
My grandpa used to tell me we had this thing called "forests"... we could do a bunch of new ones maybe?

Grow wood, use the wood, repeat... morning wood is good.
Click to expand...

Forests, back in the days of ya grandpa it probably was historical low amount of forest, we now are back at 1880 levels or so, we are getting a lot more forests as there is very little use for it.
Memory stick apparently is the biggest savior of trees.
De desertification we see in China, Israel and Africa is one of the most important projects on this earth.

Kinsaras said:
You know the CO2 is making the Ocean more acidic. Planting a tree won't fix anything.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/
Click to expand...

shad0w4life said:
Nuclear.... Oh wait it's the devil, burn more coal China and USA
Click to expand...
Planting a tree doesn't fix anything.
De desertification fixes stuff quite well as soil holds carbon too.
we just can't sustain the growth we have but there's no need to panic and thing everything will fall apart in this world.
Well thought out methods are needed and a lot of projects which seemed good at one point of time and was done in good spirit have often been the most devastating ones
 
ole-m said:
We will need some form of it, I'd say find more uses for CO2.
or dump the price for us so we can use it for more DICE overclocking :D



Forests, back in the days of ya grandpa it probably was historical low amount of forest, we now are back at 1880 levels or so, we are getting a lot more forests as there is very little use for it.
Memory stick apparently is the biggest savior of trees.
De desertification we see in China, Israel and Africa is one of the most important projects on this earth.




Planting a tree doesn't fix anything.
De desertification fixes stuff quite well as soil holds carbon too.
we just can't sustain the growth we have but there's no need to panic and thing everything will fall apart in this world.
Well thought out methods are needed and a lot of projects which seemed good at one point of time and was done in good spirit have often been the most devastating ones
Click to expand...

Memory Stick? you mean like no paper I guess?


De-desertification for certain areas I like the idea!, water and bacteria in the soil and off you go.. as to how hard is to get that water, that is whole another thing.
Also time to start engineering trees to be suitable for different things, lack of water, fast growth for wood, salt resistance, things like that.
Anything better really than this stupid machine.
 
First, we need to cut down a forest to provide space for the Carbon Sucker Plant. Then... we need to burn lots of coal to power the Carbon Sucker Plant. After that, everything will be perfect.

Well, except for the 7,000,000,000 people that are constantly producing CO2 simply by being alive. Maybe something should be done about that as well.
 
"Scientists" warned that the polar bears would be dead by 2015 too.
 
A lot of trolls lurk in this thread.

So I will lead with this, Co2 levels are higher than any recorded point in history, other than perhaps when the earth was a pool of magma. It's a problem. A major problem actually. If we cannot curve our co2 levels then the number of trees we will need to plant exceeds the amount of land available to plant them on. Once the earth is warmed by so much it causes the domino effect, since large portions green house gases are locked into permafrost,ice, and oceans. Hey sit back and enjoy the ride because well this roller coaster has been climbing the hill for awhile now. You have the guy in the front seat saying whooooo this is gonna be awesome. Guy in the second seat saying whoooo lets get this party started. Guy in the 3rd seat saying just going with the flow. Guy in the 4th seat, saying well might as well enjoy the ride. Guy in the 5th seat not speaking but trying to tie a rope to prevent the ride from continuing.
 
M76 said:
Good, we already have that tech. It's called plants. Maybe you should stop mass de-forestation at the same time you reduce co2 emissions.
Click to expand...

Shall I roll the 200 sided dice to see which country will be designated for this rule?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top